Posted
by
timothyon Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:35PM
from the shame-this-is-necessary dept.

ptorrone writes "Engadget has a step-by-step for the non-uber geek on how to play your purchased music from iTunes on other systems. To be clear, this isn't a way to take music you bought and give it to someone else, this is so you can listen to your own purchased music on other systems or devices. In fact, your personal info is still in the file."

I've purchased more music off of iTunes in the two months since I got my iPod than I have in the last 5 years. Apple has gotten about $70 dollars so far off of iTunes from my wife and I, which isn't bad considering my less than legit ways in the past...

By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system in anyway other than those provided (ie burning to cd and re-ripping). Any other means, such as this is a violation of said contract and you are liable for any and all damages, regardless of if they are actual (ie 10,000 people didn't buy a CD because they got the song from you instead) or imaginary (ie they think 10,000 didn't buy a CD because they had the remote ability to get the song from you).

Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal (lets not even debate whether an EULA actually counts as a contract)

The S in TOS stands for service. The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service. Basically they say we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who breaks our terms. The only thing Apple could do to you for breaking this "contract" is ban you. (of course the DMCA could possibly come into play somehow, but it is relatively untested)

The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service.

Right. Which means if you run PlayFair or Hymn or I'mABigScriptKiddieLookAtMeWoo or whatever on one of your iTunes songs, you are no longer legally authorized to listen to any of your iTunes songs. You are, at that point, engaging in copyright violation, which if you do it enough is a felony!

If you use an application to do it and in the process of copying it strips DRM information it is still copying, regardless of if it is not distributed outside of your PC. And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.

What your parent is saying is that copyright law is a misnomer: it should be called distribution law. Sure, copying a file from one place to another, including with this program, is copying. However, it isn't distributing it, and thus title 17 has nothing to say about the actual copying (though the DRM removal would be a sticky issue).

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. George Frena. 839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla., 1993).George Frena, the sysop of the Techs Warehouse BBS, had 170 digitized images from both Playboy and Playgirl magazine posted to his computerized bulletin board system. The two magazines were commercial adult publications protected under copyright law. Playboy Enterprises, owner and publisher of both magazines, sued Frena for copyright infringement. The Federal District Court acknowledged Frena's claims that the uploading had been done by his users without his approval; however, it still found him liable for intellectual property violation. It ruled that Frena's users had illegaly copied the pictures by digitizing them; furthermore, Frena had infringed on exclusive vendor distribution rights by making the pictures available for download by his users. It also found Frena in violation of trademark law, since the infringing material contained registered trademarks belonging to Playboy Enterprises (the Playboy and Playgirl logos).

This case established two things. First, courts can find against a defendant in an intellectual property dispute whether or not the defendant is aware of such activity. Second, intellectual property protection extends to all copies of a given work regardless of how they are made or the media on which they are presented.

It would not be hard for a plaintiff to argue that in bypassing a DRM system, the resulting file could very easily end up being copied by potentially thousands and thousands of users, with or with out the knowledge of the original copier of the file give how most P2P apps work.

There does exist the principal of "substantial non infringing use", however when a system exists to prevent rampant copying and is bypassed, it is not unheard of (and some would say not unreasonable) for a content owner/licensee owner (ie Apple) to fear unauthorized distribution and sue preemptively.

What your parent is saying is that copyright law is a misnomer: it should be called distribution law. Sure, copying a file from one place to another, including with this program, is copying. However, it isn't distributing it, and thus title 17 has nothing to say about the actual copying (though the DRM removal would be a sticky issue).

Whether this is true or not, who knows.

I know. It's not true. Copyright law deals with copying AND distribution AND lots of other stuff besides.

And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.

Nope. (IANAL-RU?)

the iTunes EULA--heck, every EULA from MS Windows to Kazaa to the GPL--relies upon copyright law as its foundation. The license is "merely" a means whereby the rights-holder agrees to let others make copies in exchange for something--be it "share and share alike" or simply money in their pocket.

If you violate the contract/agreement/etc midway through, it does not nullify past events. That's not unlike me breaking my lease and expecting my landlord to refund my last 12 months worth of rent. Such an idea is preposterous, and many such contracts have provisions for should either party break the contract. A cell phone contract is a perfect example, a customer of Verizon has agreed that should the customer break the

Didn't the files get distributed (copied) to your computer? Making further use of that copy is copyright violation.

It's like if you had software you rented for $5 a month. If you stopped paying but continued using, you would be liable for breach of contract and copyright violation - your "right" to "copy" was contingent upon your payment. Simply because you were earlier authorized to copy and use the software, it doesn't mean you are perpetually authorized to use one copy that you aren't copying any more.

Interestingly enough, however, playing a song over the radio is not controlled by the sound recording copyright (the right which controls almost all other forms of distribution) but by the song writer's copyright.

Nonsense. It deals with all aspects of the rights of the creator of a work.

That's a bizarre way of putting that -- copyrights are the rights of a creator of a work, basically. But they aren't all-encompassing. Copyrights are enumerated -- anything not specifically given over to the artist isn't covered by copyright.

Private replay of works is not an action which is controlled by copyright. Full stop.

You're referring to public performance, which it does cover. It also covers distribution.

In the iTunes case, distribution was done with respect to the copyright and the license. If you later breach the copyright, it says you lose your rights as granted by the copyright. Sadly I'm not lawyerly enough to know what that means your legal status as to the files and private use of them is. However, you aren't either.

Suffice it to say, to be legally sure, you'd probably have to consult a lawyer, and maybe a bunch of dissenting lawyers and the agencies they represent would have to consult each other and a judge and over a lawsuit.

In practical terms, of course, I really doubt anyone will ever care about your private reproduction and media shifting, so it doesn't really matter.

The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service.

Right. Which means if you run PlayFair or Hymn or I'mABigScriptKiddieLookAtMeWoo or whatever on one of your iTunes songs, you are no longer legally authorized to listen to any of your iTunes songs. You are, at that point, engaging in copyright violation, which if you do it enough is a felony!

Simply not true. once they've sold you a track, the doctrine of first sale applies, and apple CANNOT impose greater restrictions th

While you're *almost* completely on track here, but you're forgetting the DMCA. The transcoding of your iTunes track would be illegal because it would involve circumventing a copyright protection algorithm.

(I'm just saying what the law says here, not what would be held in the courts.)

Perhaps you were thinking of 1201 (c)(1)"Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title", however circumvention is not infringement. Therefore there is no fair use defence.

No, you are not. You might be in breach of contract, but you are not engaging in copyright violation. On the contrary. Copyright explicitly grants you the right to make copies on other media.

IANAL but I know that much.

BTW I am part of a record label and while I don't condone piracy, I think Fair Use is extremely important. I think FairPlay violates Fair Use. I don't think that's the end of the world, but if I can or must, I'll circumvent it.

For instance, I know someone who rented an apartment which has no window in the bedroom for escape from fire. But it is in a very nice place at below average rent, so he puts up with it. Legally, that apartment should not have been rented at all.

I rented an apartment whose lease had an illegal clause concerning a cleaning deposit. I ignored it and signed it anyway, and when time came to leave, and they tried to enforce it, I took them to small claims court and scared them so much I got an additional sev

"breach of contract" is a civil matter, not criminal. You haven't violated any laws, therefore what you're doing it ain't illegal. You can only be accused by the other party(ies) to the contract of breach - not by any officials of an executive branch of a government (in the US.)

Furthermore, the breach has to be declared by a civil court judge - lawsuits must be filed, and your case has to make its way through the system before that judgement (and/or injunction) can be declared.

I've almost lost count of the number of times I've seen this misunderstanding. A breach of contract is grounds for a lawsuit, but it is in no way, shape, or form a crime or "illegal." In other words, the other party(-ies) to the agreement can take you to court if they think you've harmed them, and then a judge will decide whether you were justified in breaking the contract.

There's this other law called Copyright which gives you (the consumer) certain RIGHTS to COPY creative works under certain limited circumstances (collectively referred to as FAIR USE).

Wow, you are fucking stupid.

First, copyright doesn't give anyone the right to copy anything. What it does is, it gives the copyright holder the right to exclude other people from copying things. That doesn't mean it's legal for the copyright holder himself to copy it, even. It might be libelous, or fraudulent, or a national

I will not debate you on the legality or binding-ness of a EULA as they have almost always been upheld by the courts.
Crap, I said I wasn't going to but This decision [linuxjournal.com]certainly didn't.

Now, for the sake of argument lets take an edge case. You purchased the songs on iTunes and burnt them to CD. After doing ghis you break the EULA. Do you think a court would allow Apple to confiscate that CD (assuming they could). I seriously doubt it, especially considering the above decision, the fact it was in Califo

The fundamental difference between your example and the Apple agreement is that the purchaser of the software has not agreed to anything, but when you buy an iTMS song you have.

The case has to do with free software you may receive with hardware which is often labeled as "not for resale", similar to candy bars or bottles of pop which make come in a bag or 6 pack. Under those cases you have not agreed in anyway to not sell them individually and can do so. (Hell, I'm receiving some free software soon which is

Merely breaking a contract is not "illegal" if by "illegal" you mean "criminal" (as opposed to incurring only civil liability). However, violation of the DMCA may (or may not) be "illegal" -- i.e., criminal. The DMCA, and particularly 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201(b) [cornell.edu] provides in pertinent part:

(b) Additional Violations. -

(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, ser

a) Terms Of Service are not a contract. They are terms which if you do not obey, they are grounds for terminating your business relationship. I.e. if apple catch you removing DRM from itunes tracks, they can refuse to sell you any more tracks. However, once they've (Apple) sold you something, first sale doctrine dictates that they cannot use copyright law to impose further restrictions. Specifically, use restrictions (i.e. you cannot do this with our product) are simply not enforceable post purchase. The music is not licenced, it is sold, and the only restrictions are those of copyright itself, i.e. you cannot distribute your copies to other people.

b) even if by some legal juggling*, these TOS could be treated like a contract, i.e. you were considered to be licensing the music, not buying it, you cannot give up your legal rights by contract. No more than you can sign into slavery, or sign away your first amendment rights in the US. Such a clause would be, and has been judged to be an illegal clause, and thus stricken from the contract. Since fair use rights are not constitutionally granted rights, it would be less clear cut; but there is a strong precedent for fair use rights not being revocable by contract terms. But in this case it's a moot point, as there's emphatically not a contract post sale.

c) There are in fact two offences you could be taken to court over. The first is copyright infringement. Your fair use rights are a defence to this charge, as long as you do not distribute copies to anyone else. Potentential to distribute has nothing to do with it, you have to actually be spreading those tracks on a p2p network. Therefore, making copies to play on another device would be legal.The second charge would be with the DMCA. However, it's not illegal to use a DRM-removal tool under the DMCA, only to write or distribute one. Therefore, stripping music you own of drm to use on another device is also fully legal.

Ergo, despite what Apple and it's fans tell you, removing DRM from music you own is 100% legal. Distributing it to others without permission is 100% illegal. Since the article contains instructions on how to play your legally purchased music on other devices you legally own, that is a 100% legal action.

* Note, in order for it be a valid contract, the seller has to have to have an ongoing relationship with you regarding the product post sale. If, on the other hand, they give you something, and you give them money, and you get nothing more from them after that other than their legal obligations like warranties (and you pay them nothing more for that particular product) it is a sale, and the contract is finished regarding that item, regardless of what the vendor would have you believe by tacking on EULA's, use clauses, licences or anything else. The only things that apply from that point on are the relevent laws of the land, and the vendor *cannot* restrict you any further than the law allows. And I will keep saying this till people stop spreading false information to the contrary.

"This is NOT a legal method!By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system"

Well, yes, but there's also the notion of Fair Use, a legal right that allows you to copy or re-format for your own use.So while this might not be a strictly legal method - breach of contract - the contract itself might put unfair restraints on your rights. It's not as simple as you make it out.

Then again IANAL.

Where I totally disagree with you is that any party could claim damages w

And this is why it was genius to watermark the files as well as DRM them. DRM can always be broken, if you can play a file at all. "Scratching out" watermarks will seriously degrade sound quality, since the watermark is in the audio even after decoding. Even if you break DRM for your own backup purposes, you can't release anything into the wild without fear of being nabbed for illegally distributing copyrighted material.

The claim that this is not a legal method is not based off of copyright law and whether you are infringing there, it is based off of the agreement you... agree to when you buy music from iTunes. d34thm0nk3y hit it right in his post [slashdot.org] in that the question whether this is leagal lay in whether the terms of service are enforcable and whether violating them would be illegal.

That's all well and good. I'm not saying that the TOS wouldn't be struck down in court. I'm just saying that, in the present discussion, your post is a red herring. Read what you quoted sec. 107 in response to:

By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system in anyway other than those provided (ie burning to cd and re-ripping). Any other means, such as this is a violation of said contract and you are liable for any and all damages, regardless of if they are actual (ie 10,000 people didn't buy a CD because they got the song from you instead) or imaginary (ie they think 10,000 didn't buy a CD because they had the remote ability to get the song from you).

Where does the above say anything about copyright law? Your response to me would have been an appropriate reply, but fair use, as I said, doesn't belong in the discussion, at least until you've dispensed with the TOS discussion. (And quoting the law would probably still be overkill at that point.)

Key quote:In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include

That did not say that if it falls under the below categories that it's fair game, what you quoted is nothing more then a guide, not an absolute, it is open to interpretation and no matter how you may interpret it... the way a judge or a lawyer or a company interprets it is far more critical (and possibly costly to you) should you be accused of copyright infringement and y

It's even legally risky to make such a program and not use it, and use such a program you neither made nor got. So making one you've used yourself wouldn't help.

However, the authors have one big defence here: the program is obviously intended to not be used to enable piracy, at least by itself. Leaving the ID of the purchaser in there essentially precludes distribution of any files that have not been processed further. Such an argument could concievably significantly help in a defence.

The most recent MP3s I listened to were of my church's youth choir, of which I am a part. And yes, I started singing along my part.

Incidentally, since I am one of the artists, what are my legal rights with respect to distributing the MP3s without asking permission of the choir director (or, worse, the entire choir)? We are unpaid, but the mini-orchestra that accompanied us was. And the CD was of course not free.

Short answer... you have no right to copy it. Were it physically possible, you could copy your part of the performance. Normally people assign their rights to a single entity (perhaps your church) and then they can ask a representative of that entity (your pastor) for permission.

Asking a single person is of course significantly easier than asking everybody who contributed, and if you're concerned about that person turning around and saying no, then you can write a contract stipulating when they should sa

"hymm decodes the songs you have purchased using the key from your iPod and/or your operating system and make a new file which is not protected, it keeps the cover art and song data as part of the file. Since this is using your key, you can only do this for your songs, which I personally think is fair- they're the songs you bought, you should be able to put them on your other computers or devices."

I don't know, even if that doesn't technically violate fair use, it comes really close. He [the author] is right though: they're the songs you bought, you should be able to put them on your other computers.

You did not buy them outright. You bought them with conditions attached. You licensed them for use with iTunes and iPod. Those are the terms you agree to after you install iTunes and the iTMS. You are violating those terms after you click on "I Agree."

Yes. Buying rights to listen to music is not buying all rights to the music. Bill Gates payed a lot more than 99 cents for full rights for "Start Me Up" (regardless of whether you think it was worth it). Apple was sued for a lot more than 99c when it used Eminem's song in an ad without what he felt was necessary permission.

People, if you want to fight DRM, etc. there's only one way. Raise millions of dollars somehow, buy a song, and then distribute it freely. Or most likely don't, because you too will feel

WRAAAAAG! At times it feels like I'm the only one who recognizes that fair use does not apply when you have contractually agreed not to bypass the DRM... for further info, see some of my other posts in this thread.

Fair use certainly DOES apply. You may be in violation of your TOS, but thats not a LEGAL issue, it's s civil issue between you and Apple. Doing this is NOT a violation of copyright under any reasonable interperation, although writing and distributing this application may be unlawful under the DMCA, which only makes provisions for research and not for fair use.

It is extremely questionable and probably false that the licensing terms from iTunes (or, indeed, for any other online music store) can be applied t

WRAAAAAG! At times it feels like I'm the only
one who recognizes that fair use does not apply when you have
contractually agreed not to bypass the DRM... for further info, see
some of my other posts in this thread.

Contractually? I believe that it's a "license agreement" not a
contract. That's a big difference. And these licenses
haven't yet been tried by a court. License are intended for
copyright - how I can distribute the program. If I pay for
something, I own it, and nobody but the government can legally tell me
what I can and can't do with it.

I find it interesting that you are unable to cite any case law supporting your claims.

Just because he chose not to doesn't mean he is unable. I tend to agree with the original poster, but IANAL. Clearly fair use has precedence over copyright, but I can see where contract law would take precedence over either.

When you watch TV, did you agree to a contract that you wouldn't make copies? No. When you buy a book, do you sign a contract that you won't share it with friends? No. When you listen to a C

I find it interesting that you are unable to cite any case law supporting your claims.

OK, I'll bite, even though I'm not the parent poster.

Take this with a grain of salt, because it's only an engineer's understanding of law from the professional practise exam.

If you contractually agree to something that is legal and within your rights to agree to, and does not restrict "commerce", the courts are likely to interpret the wording of the contract in a strict sense - i.e. accept that you intended to waive yo

Maybe someone can 'splain this to Ricky who's been trying to tune out copyright related stories to keep his sanity...

I'm wondering whether songs on iTunes, etc. are really "bought" or just "licensed"? If they're just licensed, seems to me that if without the transfer (or possibility of transfer) of ownership, the "It's Copyright Infringement Not Stealing!" debate leans in favour of the..., err... casual infringers.

VLC will work on any machine playfair/hymn works on, seeing that playfair/hymn use the decryption code contributed to VLC by Jon Lech Johansen. Note the "Copyright (C) 2004 VideoLAN" at the top of the src/hymn/drms.c file, for example.

I find it ironic (though perhaps humorous!) that this hack is most simply implemented on a Windows platform. Note that on Mac et al., you have to have an iPod, and have it plugged in, because that's where the decrypted keys come from. On Windows, however, the key encryption has been reverse engineered somehow (I don't really understand this bit) and they're able to get the key directly from your computer. This hasn't been done on the mac, so you have to wait for the iPod to decrypt it for you.

I just find it interesting that the DRM was most easily compromised by allowing iTunes for Windows! Is this just because of the sheer user base, meaning things get hacked together faster, or is it more profound, i.e., Windows is more easily hacked. Food for thought:)

PS - I've just ordered by G4 Powerbook laptop (drool, drool), doing the switch from Windows. Faintly nervous, but all my friends (both of them...) are getting the Powerbooks and loving them!

On OS X, Apple added a special flag to the kernel execve() call that will not allow a debugger (gdb) to attach to a process that sets this flag. They did this specifically for DVD Player (at the behest of the MPAA) and for iTunes (maybe a condition of their contract with the RIAA?) so that people could not attach and get the decrypted key (or trace the encryption method). I suspect (but don't know for sure) that iTunes on windows does not have this "protection" and someone attached to it with SoftIce and got the key or RE'd the encryption method.

The same "protection" was used in the OS 9 DVD player so that MacsBug could not attach to the player. But with that, DVD player just refused to run if it detected MacsBug was loaded.

Well, re-compiling is certainly an option -- if you have the skills. Compiling the Darwin kernel is no easy task -- there are lots of dependencies. It can be done (I've done it for Darwin 6 - Jaguar), but it is not something a user would be able to do (unlike Linux).
BTW: If anyone's interested, I found the blocking code in the Darwin kernel [apple.com]. Search for 'PT_DENY_ATTACH' -- it's in the ptrace() call. You'll need an Apple login ID to view it. (Free, but you have to agree to the terms of the ASPL.)

Having execve() do the protection wouldn't work anyways, seeing that gdb wouldn't call execve() with that flag set. I ktraced iTunes, and it's just calling ptrace(PT_DENY_ATTACH,...) on itself, rather than having its parent do it. You could probably run iTunes under a debugger and set a breakpoint on ptrace() and skip over the offending call.

On the other hand, while recompiling Darwin may not be "something a user would be able to do" (I've never tried), I'm sure someone who is knowledgable enough to reverse engineer iTunes' key generation scheme is also capable of compiling their kernel.

Maybe to you. Some of us, on the other hand, actually have good enough ears to tell the difference. This kind of comparison also can involve sound card and speaker quality. A POS sound card/chip with $3 tinny speakers is not really conducive to testing this kind of thing.

To be fair, I used to believe it was all BS until I actually tried it - and, believe it or not, I could tell the difference.

Now, ordinarily, a little quality loss wouldn't bother me that much if I was just yanking crap off IRC or P2P[1],

I actually find it easier to just drag the file into Playfair and have it spit out a perfect non-DRM copy (ID3 tags and album art included) than it is to burn it to an audio CD, and then re-rip it to an mp3 and reenter any meta info that was lost in the process (e.g. album art).

I just plug the headphone out into the line in of my computer and encode the songs to MP3 myself while I'm asleep. As long as you can get an audio output from a device, music DRM will never work. So what if it takes as long to record as my tape deck used to. I'm asleep, so I don't know the difference. Encoding music is easy, filling your iPOD full of illegal substances and getting it across the border is hard. Those dogs can smell anything. That's why you have to kick them in the throat.
I'm not saying I'd do anything illegal... but I'd kill somebody, in front of their own mama to listen to itunes in my car and if anybody tried to tell on me, I'd gouge their eyes out.

After all, we all know that about 1% of people (maybe slightly higher on the mac side) are smart enough with even less people caring enough to want to use something like this, especially since it is anti-piracy minded. Apple is only appearing to be serious about this to keep the record companies in bed with them.

i really like itunes. the layout is great, and the integration of itunes music store is fantastic because of the ease of use, speed of download, etc. it is slightly annoying that the songs are encrypted. if my other mp3 player could read these files, i wouldn't have any complaints. perhaps the solution is to send e-mail/letters to your favorite mp3 player company and request they release firmware upgrades for your players so that the itunes format is supported.

Is it just me, or can't you just burn the cd, then rip it into mp3? Is this against the iTunes EULA? Or do people just not want to do this because they feel they are going to lose some minor amount of sound quality doing this?

Sure. But when you do so, you lose quality. For one thing, some of the songs at the itms come from 24 bit masters. So immediately when you turn them into 16 bit CD audio tracks, you throw away a lot of potential dynamic range. That's beside the fact that decoding the AAC and then re-encoding it to either AAC or MP3 will lower the audio quality, AND you'll lose all the meta data.

hymm started out as "Playfair" which was on Sourceforge, where you could grab the source / program. Then, Apple had requested for it to be removed, so PlayFair outsourced itself to India, where it was later removed, again. Now the application is called "hymn", or "hear your music anywhere". [...]

Since it's just PlayFair, does this mean we can count this as a duplicate against the editors?

It's a "howto". It explains that you 1) install the app 2) drag and drop protected iTunes files into it. It's newsworthy, in spite of this being the third or fourth time this app has been mentioned, because now it's got a new name (hymn). If you recall the earth-shaking story a few weeks ago that Darth Vader was going to have a new costume in the next SW pre/se/quel, though we didn't actually have an image or description, you know how low the bar is.

hymn (the tool talked about in this walk through) is PlayFair. It's been renamed and a new author is working on it. Also, the latest release keeps your Apple ID in the file so if you have it on a P2P network your asking for trouble.

> hymn (the tool talked about in this walk through) is PlayFair. It's been renamed and a new author is working on it. Also, the latest release keeps your Apple ID in the file so if you have it on a P2P network your asking for trouble.

It seems like only a small step to remove the Apple ID from the decrypted file, hmm? I'm not advocating piracy but.. someone has to say this, 'cos it's what's going through plenty of people's minds.

Who said anything about making it illegal? If I buy a hard-to-find song on my wife's iMac, and I want to hear it on my Linux box, I'll happily do what it takes to make that happen. I keep hearing the tired suggestion to "just burn it to a CD, then rip it into an MP3. Get this: I can get music for free from the radio. I pay for it so that I can get good sound quality. Transcoding from one lossy algorithm to another does not fall within my definition of acceptable quality.

Some people will use these tools to share music without authorization. Some of us will use them to listen to the music that we paid for when and where we want to listen to it.

I'm not out to rip anybody off. I just want to hear some tunes. Understand?